The third storefront of the former Horseshoe Club is getting a facelift.
Dan Douglass, Douglass Development LLC, the owner of 410 N. Carson St., appeared before the Redevelopment Authority Citizens Committee on Monday to present his application for funding through Carson City’s Facade Improvement Program.
Douglass is planning to redo the facade of the building, front and back, removing the wood and brick, and repaint it, replace windows and an awning, and add glass doors downstairs for a retail tenant.
He asked RACC to waive the requirement for three contractor bids.
The Facade Improvement Program provides up to $25,000 in matching funds based on the lowest bid, but most applicants have had trouble getting bids due to the relatively small size of the projects and the current boom in the construction industry.
The RACC agreed to waive the requirement and approved $25,000 in matching funds for a project Douglass said would cost more than $66,000.
The program doesn’t cover signage, but Douglass is also planning to use the existing sign, overlay it with bronze aluminum and add the address in large, aluminum numbers.
“To be honest, I’m not sure it’s going to look good, but if it doesn’t look good we’ll take it down,” said Douglass. “The architect thinks the sign will work. I don’t know, but I can barely match my socks.”
Douglass said he has signed a tenant for the first floor retail area, an arts supply and antique store, but doesn’t expect the space to be ready for occupancy before October.
He’s also converting the second floor into two, 1,100 square-feet two-bedroom apartments.
The RACC also briefly discussed an update on the other projects already approved for Facade Improvement Program funds.
Five of the projects — at 112 N. Curry St., 318 N. Carson St., 224 S. Carson St., 310 S. Carson St., 308/310 N. Carson St. and 210 S. Carson St. — have been completed. Four projects have been issued building permits and work has begun, and one project’s application expired.
The RACC moved to its next meeting a look at its annual allocation in order to make spending recommendations to the Board of Supervisors because Community Development staff weren’t available to discuss it.